Hello Rob, and welcome to the friendly Camera Labs forum!To enjoy your stay here please have a look at the house-rules!----Is 28mm wide enough for you? Well, only you can be the judge for this. But I included the image with the frames in my review to give you an impression of what crop to expect when switching from 24mm to 28mm.As to flare-resistance I did the contra-light test in my review which came out very good but the light was not within the image-circle. But if you look at the following image you'll see that there are no obvious signs of flare from the sun.

Thanks for the review. I had considered this lens for use on my F6, but my attention now returns to the 28mm 2.8 AI-S.

On the subject of flare and ghosting, at night, I wanted to mention that one's filter introduces its own set of problems, particularly ghosting. I rarely use filters at night, and when I do, I only use the better multi-coated filters. Hoods, yes; filters, rarely.

- There a huge focus shift because of Spherical aberration - you can work around this by not shooting at infinity but focus at nearer object for a landscape pic - or fine tune the lens for smaller apertures, but then it is not good at f. 1.8 - it is very fine in the flare/ghosting area

My verdict for this lens is here.And your first two point are right, Kibberlasen.As to your third point (flare/ghosting), one can at least say: The lens doesn't show flare/ghosting easily. But I did not test this extensively. So there might be situations that show some flare/ghosting.

Thanks for the review. I had considered this lens for use on my F6, but my attention now returns to the 28mm 2.8 AI-S.

On the subject of flare and ghosting, at night, I wanted to mention that one's filter introduces its own set of problems, particularly ghosting. I rarely use filters at night, and when I do, I only use the better multi-coated filters. Hoods, yes; filters, rarely.

You wrote this just after my praise for the Nikon 28mm f/2.0 AI og AI-s, so just to be sure, you did not mix those lenses - I do not know if the 2.8 is good in this area, but I know the 2.0 really are fantastic in this area, and I think THE best or at least one of the very best ever from Nikon in the flare/ghosting area - you really have to work hard to get it, and there is NO nano coating !!!!! so the old ones with fine inner construction can do the thing.

I bought it mainly for this feature, and when I got it (E-bay) I tryed it, and after some work and a lot of trying ... I got it, but then I found out there was a cheap uv-filter sitting on it , so.... of course you c a n get it, but it is so easy not to get it, and for me I like a lens with big resistance against this flare/ghoating, because I like backlighting and shooting with sun or strong light (night-shooting) in the frame.

Finally I "broke down" and ordered this lens, even my first thought was not to do that, but the lightness of the lens did it, and I just have to work around the focus shift by not shooting at infinity but focus at a nearer object for a landscape.

I will receive it tomorrow or the day after, and then we will see if I can live with it, I really hope so - the 28mm is - for me - a really fine focal length, and I can handheld this light WA-lens all the day with my heavy Nikon body, so it will be for both landscapes on tripod and for other work handheld, and here the 28mm is better than 24mm.

I am very happy that Camera Labs recognized the problem - not all reviews/tests does that, and I am sure it is a desing fault, not sample variations (even there of course can be so) so I know what I will get and try to work around it.

I have also ordered an adaptor ring - 67 mm - for my Lee-filters (and those adaptor rings are stupid expensive), so I really go for it.

Some claims it is only lab-test, that will show this problems, but I do not agree after reading a lot about this lens - also Lloyd Chambers, I am sure I would have seen it sooner or later when I print huge, so now I am prepared, thanks!!.

-----

Next thought: I am considering to get the lens calibrated by Nikon for the f. stop = f. 5.6 (not fine-tune, but calibration) , then I understand it will only be minor at f. 8 or f. 11 ??- Thomas, can you perhaps point out if this is right ??

.... and also exactly what this will mean when shooting at f. 1.8 or f. 2.8, so I am sure I have not misunderstood anything ?

Kibberlasen, I hope you'll enjoy your new lens!As to calibrating lenses, I have no idea/experience.Perhaps someone else can chime in here?

Thank you, Thomas.

2 of my many Nikon lenses needed calibration from new, and after that they were sharp, - I think (but not sure) there is a difference in calibration and fine-tuning, but I am not sure myself, what the difference is, but I am sure that it will not change the design of the lens = the focus shift caused by sphereical abb, so perhaps the difference is minor or perhaps nothing ?

If I ask the same questions as above and we say, that it is after fine-tuning the lens to f. 5.6 what would your answers then be ?:

If I fine tune the lens for the f. stop = f. 5.6 then I understand the focus shift will only be minor at f. 8 or f. 11 ??- Thomas, can you perhaps point out if this is right ??

.... and also exactly what this will mean when shooting at f. 1.8 or f. 2.8= As I understand it will influence the sharpness here at f. 1.8 and f. 2.8, but the work around should be to point the focus a bit behind the target.........so I am sure I have not misunderstood anything ?

There is so huge front focus - f. 1.8 - f. 2.0 and also f. 2.8 (lesser at f. 2.8, but still very clear) that I can not use it, sorry to say.

I am really sorry, because I needed this light wide angle lens for my heavy camera-body, and the 4 mm (vs. the 24mm f/1.4G) does it for me, so I could use it for many things, and I really wanted to love this lens, but this is too much.